Lock or No Lock

[Hapworth]

Does S&W plan on offering any new guns without locks?

They offer several J frames sans lock: the 442, 642, 442 Moon Clip, and 640 Pro come immediately to mind.

 

[Furdog]

I have a 21-4 that failed to fire repeatedly with the lock in the fire position. With only light loads the lock would jar loose and tie up the gun. I removed the lock and the gun is now usable. My experience is evidently not common, but sufficient for me to have no confidence in the lock.

 

[Jeff423]

I said I would never buy a S&W with a lock, but I did today. I got a good deal on a very slightly used 686-6, 6". For me the deciding issue was not the lock but rather the fact that it was D&T for a scope from the factory. I'm sure there some pre-lock Smith's that are factory D&T but I haven't seen one. I've seen a bunch of pre-lock Smith's that were D&T by someone else. Some didn't look too bad and some looked like they were done freehand with a cheap drill motor and dull bit. Since I want to use a Red Dot I would pay more for a post-lock that is factory D&T than for a pre-lock that was aftermarket D&T. I also have several pre-locks with clamp on scope mounts that work great but I don't think they are made any more. FWIW, the fit and finish on my "new" smith is as good as any of my old ones.

Jeff

 

[Rick_A]

I purchased the first no-lock 442 I could get my hands on.

The other gun got "plugged."

Either is acceptable.

 

[Weisse52]

I have 2 revolvers with the dreaded lock. While I have never had an issue with them I truly hate that hole in the frame. I got two "plugs" on order and those holes will be gone. I always look to buy my guns without that "#@?;"...but that is not always practical. I do see myself buying more older Smith's and may have to start looking at some Ruger's as well.

 

[Kframerbluvr]

I've written so much on this subject that I simply don't feel like going over it all for the umpteenth time.

Of all my S&W revolvers, only one of them is equipped with the ILS (lock). That was because it wasn't offered without the lock when the model was first introduced (M&P 340). As an armorer, I disassembled the gun and inspected it, making sure the bottom leg of the locking arm's torque lock spring was properly secured within the recessed notch in the bolt channel.

I fired that little lightweight with an assortment of Magnum and +P loads and the lock didn't spontaneously engage. I made it my "range beater" snub. I also made it my default armorer "practice" gun (practicing some of the seldom needed armorer skills).

When they released a No-Lock version of the M&P 340 I bought one. Not having the lock was my excuse.

Now that I've got 7 J-frames in my safe (pair of 642-1's & M&P 340's, 37 DAO, 649, 36), guess which one sees the most range time and carry use?

Yep, that first M&P 340 ... with the lock.

It's finish is pretty worn and it's acquired some scratches, dings and marks along the way.

It's also never exhibited any problem with the lock.

I've observed a number of our guys and some private citizens shooting J's made with the lock. No problems in any of them.

FWIW, I've had to identify & correct more problems in revolvers brought to me that involved issues other than the lock, and most of them have been in older S&W revolvers. I've got an older nickeled 36 sitting in my safe at the moment which has a broken hand torsion spring (old style).

BTW, the last time I asked S&W's LE sales dept folks about whether the J's they're selling to large agencies have had the locks removed, I was told the agencies buying and using the guns that are originally equipped with locks, get the guns with the locks. They can order the same internal hammer models offered to the commercial buyers without locks, if they wish, though.

After speaking with the head armorer instructor, and a class room full of revolver armorers during my class, I was unable to find anyone who could report problems with the locks in any of the little 5-shot snubs seeing increasingly more use among LE customers. Some of the older, experienced revolver armorers weren't keen on the new feature, of course, but hadn't seen any problems. (A couple of them worked for one of the major West Coast agencies who have over 9K sworn folks, and the 5-shot snub has a long & distinguished history of use within the agency. )

Given my druthers, I'd prefer a revolver without the lock, if only for simplicity's sake ... but it's no longer keeping me awake at night.

I'll continue trying to wear out my M&P 340 with the lock, and carry it (when I don't occasionally decide to pull one of my 642's, the 649 or my other M&P 340 out of the safe, just for a change ... or, sometimes because the "beater" 340 is dirty from all its range use and I didn't have time to clean it when working the range.)

Suit yourself. We all do.

Thanks for your experience and observations. I ordered a 442 in July from a police supply store in Northern VA and remember specifically asking for the no lock version. I finally get a call on Halloween saying my gun is in. I drive the 1.5 hours to the store and alas, it has the lock. I relent and take it anyway for $358 OTD. Did not carry it until test firing with standard pressure 158 SWC and plus P 158 grain LHP issue loads from the '80s I still had on hand. No issues and the barrel cleaned up very nicely as opposed to some of my old M10s that have to be scrubbed vigorously to remove the lead deposits.Your comments are comforting because I was worried about the lock engaging on its own. It is in my front pants pocket as I am typing this...BTW, are the larger revolver models more prone to this occurring? I occasionally see Thunder Ranch models available and would really like the .45 ACP version...

 

[Warren Sear]

I have J frames and N frames with the lock, and none has ever malfunctioned in any way. However, maybe about five times in 30 years, I have had revolvers "lock-up" from just a speck of foreign material getting under the extractor star.

So, in my experience anyway, you are far more likely to have a revolver "lock-up" from fouling than from some silly internal lock malfunctioning.

 

[Old cop]

I have owned models w/the locks but never had a problem w/any of them. That said I just don't like the looks, or the politics that brought them into our lives, so they were eventually all traded or sold. My current EDC is either a new no lock 442 or an older model 38 flat latch from 1962. I doubt that I'll buy anything w/the lock, I just hate the way it looks.

 

[hotrod150]

It's real easy to remove the "flag" thereby disabling the lock. If you leave the "cam"(?) (the part with the keyhole) in place, there's very little indication that the lock has been modified. I don't care for an IM gun, but if a no-lock isn't available this is the second best choice.

 

[Snapping Twig]

Turned down a LNIB 629 mountain gun because it had the lock.

No sir, not gonna do it.

No MIM, no lock, not ever.

I understand MIM works, and I understand the lock is not a big deal to some, but for me.... no.

 

[ladder13]

The IL isn't nearly as ugly as those idiotic rails on the semi's.

 

[ferretray]

Turned down a LNIB 629 mountain gun because it had the lock.

No sir, not gonna do it.

No MIM, no lock, not ever.

I understand MIM works, and I understand the lock is not a big deal to some, but for me.... no.

Thats why I spent the extra money/time to locate and purchase a pre-lock (1989 manuf.) Mountain Revolver.
I'm not willing to invest in the current S&W lineup of lawyer driven insult to the S&W market.